Advertisement
Yesterday, I was reading the Wikipedia entry on Intersex Activist Cheryl Chase. (tinyurl.com/2avpma) . At the bottom of the entry, I noticed this "She also lobbies for the abolition of the word Hermaphrodite in favor of Disorders of Sex Development."
As an intersexed person, my first reaction is "Fuck that!"
Gender variants are common in nature. It's not a disorder. Last thing Intersexed folk need is yet another pathologizing of intersexed folks.
Consider people with variant hair color. Take for example, people with natural Red Hair. This uncommon, but natural variant occurs in approximately 2% of the population. Intersexed folks occur as between 1% - 4% of the population (depending on definations & which studies you look at). Uncommon does not equal disorder or deformed.
So-called "ambiguous genitalia" are not a deformity. They are just part of the curve. Give the people who have the atypical bodies a chance to grow up & decide for themselves if they feel a need to change their bodies. If we treat people who are different as normal, the cost to us is minimal, and the benefit significant. Conversely, If we treat people who are atypical as freaks, the cost to us is higher & the damge inflicted is significant.
These terms (such fill-in-the-blank disorder) as are used by doctors to make decisions with parents of children born with "ambiguous genitalia". A child with a disorder might need surgery to "fix" that child. A child that is atypical is more likely to be able to grow up intact & make that person's own choice about if they feel a need for surgery.
Don't like the term "hemaphrodite?? Well, I personally find "Disorders of Sex Development", MORE judgemental.
What's wrong with "Variant or Atypical Sex Development"? I think it's a lot more neutral & does not patholigize gender variant folks.
What do you think?
Max
As an intersexed person, my first reaction is "Fuck that!"
Gender variants are common in nature. It's not a disorder. Last thing Intersexed folk need is yet another pathologizing of intersexed folks.
Consider people with variant hair color. Take for example, people with natural Red Hair. This uncommon, but natural variant occurs in approximately 2% of the population. Intersexed folks occur as between 1% - 4% of the population (depending on definations & which studies you look at). Uncommon does not equal disorder or deformed.
So-called "ambiguous genitalia" are not a deformity. They are just part of the curve. Give the people who have the atypical bodies a chance to grow up & decide for themselves if they feel a need to change their bodies. If we treat people who are different as normal, the cost to us is minimal, and the benefit significant. Conversely, If we treat people who are atypical as freaks, the cost to us is higher & the damge inflicted is significant.
These terms (such fill-in-the-blank disorder) as are used by doctors to make decisions with parents of children born with "ambiguous genitalia". A child with a disorder might need surgery to "fix" that child. A child that is atypical is more likely to be able to grow up intact & make that person's own choice about if they feel a need for surgery.
Don't like the term "hemaphrodite?? Well, I personally find "Disorders of Sex Development", MORE judgemental.
What's wrong with "Variant or Atypical Sex Development"? I think it's a lot more neutral & does not patholigize gender variant folks.
What do you think?
Max
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Mon, March 26, 2007 - 4:49 PMI agree with you, Max!! Yes, "variant genitals" is a MUCH less judgmental term.
I wish more people would see Disability as a Gift. Dis or datability. Many Disabled often develop gifts that compensate for their Disability.
I would love for people NOT to judge ME as "sick" or "wrong" just because I am "not normal".
Because my Greatest Would may well be my Greatest Gift.
A sick or wounded healer should not be condemned or discredited!
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Thu, March 29, 2007 - 12:19 AMway to go max! i totally agree! our wasp medical model seeks to pathologize any variations! fuck that!
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Thu, March 29, 2007 - 3:19 PMMax, I know what it's like to be considering as having a "disorder". The psychiatric profession, bless their hearts, call voices inside the head or visions that you see, but which nobody else sees or hears, "delusions", "hallucinations" or "paranoia". I call my Voices and Visions "divine guidance". I just wonder at the wisdom of a culture that, more often than not, is taught to disregard its wisdom keepers, the Artists, Shamans, and Thinkers Outside of the Box. The medical model of SO many things is so fucked, or at best, very incomplete! They used to consider homosexuality itself, a mental illness. OhmyGod!!
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Thu, March 29, 2007 - 4:35 PMMax, I'm with you. I'm dyslexic and I am not retarded, slow, or stupid. I can read, too. Brains and genitals vary, and the variations are not a disorder. I agree, FUCK THAT! -
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Thu, March 29, 2007 - 11:11 PMand if you read the history of the amer psych assoc, the ONLY reason they changed homosexuality from a disorder to a normal variation was because of political pressure. gays and lesbians protested at many of their meetings and they finally changed. not because they were suddenly enlightened.
did you know early psychologists had a disorder named for slaves who wanted to run away?
that is so fucked up!
-
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Fri, March 30, 2007 - 8:51 PMWhile I agree in principle, the reality is that having a "disorder" means that it will be a lot easier for people who desire surgery to get it. Also protects you against discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
-
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Sat, March 31, 2007 - 10:31 AMBased on that logic, gay people would be better servered if Homosexuality were considered a disorder.. I mean, after, they they would be protected "against discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act." ??
On ther other hand, it is my understanding, that under the Civil Right Act (1964), Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin by any employer with 15 or more employees; as amended in 1972 it applies to public and private educational institutions.
While they may not have been thinking of intersexed folks when they wrote that statute, if I am discriminated against due to my being intersexed, that an illegal act, under current law.
-
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Sat, March 31, 2007 - 10:41 AMAlso, in California, there is the Unruh Civil Rights act, which states, in part"
"(b) All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Sat, March 31, 2007 - 11:07 AM"Based on that logic, gay people would be better servered if Homosexuality were considered a disorder.. I mean, after, they they would be protected "against discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act." ??"
Well, yeah, if they wanted their insurance to pay for "treatment" so they can be "cured."
This is the same question, of course, that's being debated over in TG-land. If Gender Identity Disorder is a disorder, then there's some justification for insurance payment for treatment, protection against discrimination, et al. If it's just a normal variation, then you're on your own.
The overarching question, of course, is how far the paradigm of binary gender can be bent before it snaps. My sense is that the snapping point is coming pretty soon -- at least I hope so. But that erroneous belief in binary gender is so fundamental to our culture that its breakage will change things in ways we can't begin to comprehend. -
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Tue, April 10, 2007 - 12:03 AMbut that reasoning means that the basis for pathologizing people should be so that they get rights and insurance and decent paid medical care. that is certainly one strategy but imho not the best strategy. people deserve rights, and insurance and affordable medical care without being pathologized! -
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Tue, April 10, 2007 - 6:27 PMSure. But the slippery slope looks something like this: I have an inner self that has enormous tits, and for my outer self to match up to who I believe myself to be, I want my insurance to pay for my boob job, and that will drive your rates up. (Obviously an extreme and absurd case, but I choose it to illustrate the internal tensions of what we're discussing here.)
I don't know what the answer is. I do believe that everybody has a right to affordable medical care. But a huge number of issues fall somewhere between "medically necessary" and "elective": gender reassignment, surgery to adjust the appearance of ambiguous genitalia, bariatric treatment, etc., etc. If gender identity, ambiguous genitals and morbid obesity are "diseases," then treatment for them is medically necessary; if they're normal variations in humankind, then it's elective. And the more we decide to spread the cost of health care across the population, the more it becomes the population's business to decide where it wants to draw the line.
We all wish these issues were simple, but they're just not. -
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Tue, April 10, 2007 - 7:26 PMAffordable Health Care is a very important issue. However, it's not the only issue. Intersexed is not just a medical challenge to be fixed. For me, it's a valid gender identity.
Morbid Obesity & Alcoholism are two examples of things which have clearly demonstrated medical risks associated with them. Yet, many people struggle with defining these as "disease".
For me, the issue is: Do you want to change this? If the answer is yes, then it is appropriate to render help to that person. Even though it might raise my insurance rates.
On the other hand, infants & very young children who have been labeled as having a Disorder, might not be able to express, much less grant informed consent.
The "enormous boobs" argument posits that all matters of medically/surgically adjusted bodies can be covered by health insurance, if only we can find a way to pathologize them. I think tends to fall more under a discussion of body image & access to health care and/or reconstructive surgery. Again, it's an important discussion. But it's a different topic.
-
-
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Tue, April 10, 2007 - 7:11 PMIt's an Apples & Oranges response.
You made a comment about Civil Rights being the issue, to which I specifically responded. ie Title VII of the 1964 Civil rights act & the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Rather than respond to that, you then switched to something else.. It seems responsive, but actually is not.
**
As for "Well, yeah, if they wanted their insurance to pay for "treatment" so they can be "cured." "... It's a Red Herring.
No one said that.
I didn't say or even imply I wanted to be cured.
Nor did I say or imply that gay folks want or need to be cured.
**
The Gender Identity Disorder discussion is an important discussion. But also completely separate discussion.
In the case of Variant or Atypical Sex Development, that in & of itself IS part of the curve. There may however be things which may be considered symptoms or aspects of the Atypical Development , which might need to be addressed medically. But I say, address those issues if and when they need to be addressed. Do not trade hermaphrodite for medial pathologizing.
Max -
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Tue, April 10, 2007 - 7:46 PM"As for "Well, yeah, if they wanted their insurance to pay for "treatment" so they can be "cured." "... It's a Red Herring.
No one said that.
I didn't say or even imply I wanted to be cured."
I totally understand that, and applaud you. But what about your brothers and sisters who do? If genital variance is depathologized, that leaves them out in the cold.
What options do you have that will help them with their concerns, which I assume you believe to be valid, while equally honoring your desire to be depathologized? -
-
What do other Intersex folks think about the term "Disorder"
Thu, July 26, 2007 - 4:36 PMWhen I initially read your respond, I was tempted to shoot something back right away. But I did not want the discussion to fall into a simple Tit-for-tat exchange. So, for a long time, I left it alone. Not because I agreed with your postion. I don't. But more because I didn't get the impression you were open to being pursueded.
You asked about my "brothers and sisters" (which itself presumptively asserts the gender binary paradigm). Interestingly, it turns out that the whole matter has been discussed rather extensively. It seems my view is NOT an uncommon one, amongst intersex folk. Read it for yourself, here: www.intersexualite.org/Respon...ve.html
Max
-
-
Re: What do other Intersex folks think about the term "Disorder"
Fri, July 27, 2007 - 6:14 PMI'm quite sure it isn't; it's a logical and defensible position. I don't disagree with you and I'm not sure why your tone is so confrontational. I'm simply trying to point out that your suggestions, if followed, would be problematic for some other intersexed people.
-
-
-
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Sat, June 2, 2007 - 7:28 PM"If it's just a normal variation, then you're on your own. "
That idea is the disorder. The idea that, if you can't show that you're a victim, then society will make you a victim by turning its back on you...that is the pathology. That's what is making people all over this country, regardless of any superficial characteristics, victims of their own beliefs and the society which springs from the recesses of the mind. Lets cure that disorder, and I think we'll find it was the only disorder the whole time.
-
-
-
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Wed, May 23, 2007 - 9:28 AMI am really happy that you as an individual are comfortable with your own identity. That shows you have good self-esteem and are not very troubled by what others may think or presume.
Concerning the question you have raised. I don't think there is an appropriate "single" answer that society could give to those that are born intersexed. I don't feel I am avoiding the issue. And I don't think I am the person(not being born intersexed) has the right to make a judgement that affects all that are borned intersexed. It just seems to be a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" issue. No matter what verdict could be made, someone is not going to be happy. So who is the majority of those who are born "intersexed"? If you are talking about legislation, I think it would be best(in an ideal world) if congress took a pole which only included votes from those born intersexed to decide on the issue. But then I am pretty sure there would be folks that were born intersexed that would not vote for fear of having their identities exposed to others or some other reason. And those folks may possibly be the key to solving this issue. Which intern would not make for an accurate decission concerning the issue. This is why I say there probably isn't a right or wrong single answer to the issue that you raised. But the answer should be in favor of the majority and not majority that don't have any real insite of what it's like to be intersexed. -
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Wed, August 15, 2007 - 8:15 PMthe inability to reproduce itself is considered a disorder -
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Sun, August 19, 2007 - 8:42 AMI'm 52 and I had my tubes tied a quarter century ago. Sick, sick, sick.
-
-
-
Re: I do not have a Disorder
Sat, August 18, 2007 - 7:43 AMWho knows Max. You may be what nature is trying to evolve us into ;)
Are you more fertile than the rest of us? ;)
